May 26, 2012

George Will, pushing back Jeffrey Rosen (the source of the internal quote).

In case you're wondering why I never blogged about that Jeffrey Rosen article (which got a lot of attention), I thought it was the usual propaganda, quite boring to someone who's very familiar with all the law.

Did I fail you? Did you want me to pick it apart... explain everything... because it's being talked about... because it was in The New Yorker?

I have an interestingness standard, not an it-was-in-The-New-Yorker standard.

Oh, wait! I'm mixing up my Jeffreys. Jeffrey Toobin wrote the article in The New Yorker that I thought was the usual propaganda. Jeffrey Rosen's usual propaganda was in The New Republic.

Seriously, tell me if you want me to do more dissecting of the Jeffreys. They talk about law to the general public and thus have a lot of influence. Should I be more vigilant? Please advise.

43 comments:

Yes, I would like your perspective on both Jeffrey's views (I agree it is pre-emptive left-wing propganda in both cases). You have been in the past - and I do not say this as flattery - absolutely excellent in tearing apart their remarks before.

Just read the Toobin article last night. Toobin is an excellent writer, but sometimes surprisingly petulant and childish.

Rosen - well, he's obviously smart, and he's quoted way too often as a source when he has been shown after only a minute of analysis to be a pompous and self-righteous windbag.

Professor- With the due respect to you as an educator, I would think that the topics you would need to dissect in a typical Jeffry(ether one) article would be of the most basic aspects of the court and law.

You would not put up with a student of yours showing up to class who had not done the preliminary reading, why should you coddle your blog readers by going back to the elementary reading of Federalist #81

The threats to call Roberts ugly names is not a legal argument. It's a peer pressure game played to file articles by doofuses with publisher deadlines.

Toobin has always been a useless hack with a Flying Wallenda way of positioning himself as a half critic and half supporter of any issue. He gets attention, but he has zero integrity, which makes him beyond BORING.

Your analysis is definitely worth your time and ours, Professor,precisely because

They talk about law to the general public and thus have a lot of influence.

Incredibly out-sized influence. But silence in the face of proaganda eventually allows the propagandist to win the day, or at least gain enough respect to be seriously considered by voters and policy makers, something that should never have gotten to such a point.

What Chase said. You have the chops to dissect what is said by the Toobins, Rosens, Bazelons, and Lithwicks, and hopefully your posts will be forwarded in email. And of course, non-lawyers could use your insights.

Haven't we heard Constitutional scholar Pelosi said after Kelo losing her waterfront home to a dump-site that the Supremes were like gods, that we shouldn't do a thing to overturn the Supremes? Now we have another "god", so we can dispose of the "like gods", yes?

I don't get Toobin's reputation, I find he's a hack. And one that often gets basic facts about the cases he's writing about wrong. Look at some of the criticism of his Citizens United book and see how much he's criticized for making basic factual errors that undermine his theme.

Why would I care about Rosens article when one of the dumbest human being alive by the name of Patrick Leahey chided the Chief Justice Urkel-style the other day to judiciously pass UrkelCare in the Senate. That is more interesting then whatever you didn't analyze in Rosens article. For us no less.

There will be no health care reform, let alone welfare reform, until society rules that progressive involuntary exploitation is unacceptable. It is also imperative to dispel any outstanding myths that dreams of instant gratification can be fulfilled without consequence.

As ever Ann thank you for your blog. I do not believe a dissection of the articles are necessary at this point of time. I eagerly await the decision and then let's discuss it. The Jeffreys are not adding to the debate.

I would love it if you commented more on people who know more about the law than you do, Professor (like the Jeffreys). I realize that may mean you have to comment on many, if not most, of newly sworn in attorneys in Wisconsin. Still, I'm willing to hear more about how someone like Jenny, a 2012 graduate from Green Bay who already knows more about the law and politics than her former Con Law professor if it means you embarrassing yourself like this again.

Pretending to know about the law and the SCOTUS yet refusing to acknowledge Roberts was a liar at his confirmation hearing, that he sees himself as a super-legislator in a super Senate, and that Supreme Court judges have been roundly criticized by political actors since Marshall purposefully and willfully screwed Jefferson with Marbury v Madison is an embarrassment to all of us. It was, however, funny.

The answer here to preserving the Court is quite simple -- in the event of a 5-4 decision to strike down ObamaCare, the liberal justices must immediately sign on to the majority opinion in order to keep from appearing to be partisans.